Different Perspectives on the Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility

When it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility, an organization should choose wisely what it stands for. Friedman and Carroll have different perspectives on the concept of CSR. Friedman argues that social responsibility in a company is all about the economic value and how much profit is being made. He believes that any money used for charitable activities that benefit the society is an inappropriate use of shareholders’ money as it does not generate any revenue directly.

He emphasizes following the rules that are in place, both legal and ethical, even in activities of maximizing profits (Pava & Krausz, 2009).

Spending on society is a burden that drags a company behind. On the other hand, Carroll advocates for embracing CSR and believes a company has four responsibilities towards its stakeholders: economic, legal, ethical, and humanitarian. This means that an organization does not only focus on maximizing its profits. It produces products that meet the expectations of its customers, thus generating profit, adheres to the set legal laws of business, respects the beliefs of the society involved in their business practices, and gives back to the community as a gesture of goodwill (Carroll, 2015).

Carroll’s ideology is more favorable for an organization. It does not only focus on maximizing profit, but also considers other stakeholders such as employees, customers, and society, ensuring sustainability in the process (Shaw, 2009). Economic responsibility ensures that the company sustains itself, and it also rewards the stakeholders and employees. It is the foundation of a company and determines its progress. Legal responsibility is also crucial, as there are rules set to run activities which a company is expected to comply with. Fairness should always be observed. A company that abides by the rules gives its stakeholders and customers confidence, making it easier for them to invest. As a result, the company markets itself and profit increases (Carroll & Shabana, 2009).

The ethical responsibility requires a company’s practices to respect the beliefs, customs, and norms of the societies involved. It also entails respecting customers’ and stakeholders’ beliefs and observing their rights. This creates a healthy relationship and bond between the company and its stakeholders, fostering an understanding of their needs and the ability to deliver as per their expectations. The humanitarian responsibility entails giving back to the community as a gesture of goodwill. Most companies find it necessary to engage in activities that benefit society as a way of showing appreciation for their support. This could be through gifts, community development engagement or offering training services to the people. Such gestures create a reputable brand name for the company, ensuring its continued growth.

References

Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87-96.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Carroll, A. B. (2008). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1-7.
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (2009). The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 321-357.
Shaw, W. H. (2009). Marxism, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 565-576.

Did you like this example?

269

11